faster than light travel...is possible

maybe...If the speed of light MUST be constant, and by speed they mean the time it takes to travel a certain distance relative to the space it was in then what if the actual space it existed on was moving, and also, in what dimension viewed from does the speed of light have to be constantIve discussed this before, but never made a thread on it.So if you were on a huge plane of Ice, this ice represents space in the universe.Every 10 meters you have a line on the iceyou have 2 snow mobiles (which represent 2 light beams)they both must cross a line once every second (theyre going 10mps)What if the ice berg split in 2, and half of it was moving forward as 1 mobile was driving on it. It would still be crossing a line once every second, just the line and the ice would be movingTo the other snow mobile, if it were to look over at the otther one it would appear to be moving to fast.However, from a helicopter above of the ice (which represents a 4th dimension perspective, here it is third, and the situation is second you see), it would be aparent that the mobile was not infact cheating and going to fast.So does lifght have to remain a constant speed viewed from THIS dimension, or can it appear to exceed it in this dimension, if you could figure out how to break off a peave of space an dmove it, and really be the same in the 4th dimension?

quote:Originally posted by realmswalkerTo the other snow mobile, if it were to look over at the otther one it would appear to be moving to fast.

This is incorrect. The snowmobile on the 'stationary' ice would see the other snowmobile moving at 10mps. That snowmobile would see the first as moving at 10mps. From its point of view its block of ice is stationary and the it is the other one that is moving away.

Realmswalker - I've been puzzling over something similar for a while, but I don't have the knowledge to be able to think it through properly.If it were possible to create a mini-universe around a space ship, could the whole thing be accelerated to light speed or beyond? The mini universe would not actually be part of our universe, so could travel at any speed through it (although "through it" may be the wrong term). Anything inside the mini universe would be bound by the laws of physics, so nothing inside it could travel faster than light; but it wouldn't need to. Nothing in our universe, nor anything in the mini universe, would be travelling FTL through its own universe.My brain hurts [V]

Your brain will hurt even more if you care to consider the work done by the physicist Heim in the 1950s in an effort to unite relativity and quantum mechanics. The theory is apparently extremely difficult, but has attracted recent attention, in part because it succesfully predicts the mass of sub atomic particles. The US government has expressed interest and researchers and the Sandia National Laboratory are considering testing the theory with an extremely powerful electomagnetic they have available.

The theory proposes a propulsion system that would move a craft into two additional, 'parallel' dimensions, where the speed of light may be many times faster than in the conventional four dimensions. This would permit, for example, travelling to a star eleven light years away in under three months.

There is a good review of the concept in this New Scientist article.http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

hmmm(warnign the below is total speculation and probably bull crap but o well)well doctor beaver (your idea is basically mine), because you cannot create nor destroy (take out of the universe) energy/mass you would perhaps have to figure out a way to replace with an equal quantity of energy or mass out of no where to be able to even start thinking about taking the space ship out of this universe to move it in its own universe. Perhaps, using that way that creates energy and mass out of a vacum (i forget what its caleld, its rather trippy though) you could infact do the above, create enough spontaneous energy that you could take some mass out of the universe and into its own with out violating any basic laws of physics. I know that those particles that are created with that vacuum thing are virtual, they disapear instantly, but what if you could figure out a way to link them with real particles, and it would instead phase out the real particle instead of the virtual one, you would of course have to have equal wuantity of virtual mass/energy and real mass/energy but it could happen.Now the only problem would be phasing the actual particles you just phased out back in...maybe...if after being phased out you exist in this alternate, limbo dimension, where virtual particles come from you could repeat the process maybe you could return to our existence.

well im gonna stop right there, this is to off topic in my own thread! im gonna go post a new thread...

Also i have another question, can nothing go faster than the speed of light, or can nothing be observed going faster than the speed of light...?

quote:There is a good review of the concept in this New Scientist article.http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

I so enjoy it when someone gives a solid reference.

This is remarkable stuff, about which I knew nothing. If the theory correctly predicts the masses of particles, it must have something going for it.

Regarding things moving greater than the speed of light: In relativity as we currently understand it, the local speed of light is the maximum local speed of any object or signal. However, G.R. as applied to gravity says that time passes slower at lower altitudes and faster at higher altitudes, and that light is affected correspondingly, so that it moves slower at lower altitudes and faster at higher altitudes (sort of like in a glass of nonuniform index of refraction, with the result that it is similarly refracted, i.e., bent by gravity). The implications of this are, of course, that light traveling horizontally at an altitude above the observer, is actually moving faster than C as seen at the altitude of the observer.

This immediately raises the possibility of sending signals faster than the (local) speed of light by simply routing them throuhg a different altitude; however it is necessary to raise them up to this altitude first and then bring them back down again, so that when this additional path is taken into account, the total transit time is undoubtedly always larger than that of the direct path.

One other consideration: I believe that G.R. declares that a rotating reference frame is equivalent to a stationary reference frame with the universe rotating around it. It is evident that to an earthbound person rotating at 1 revolution per second, a flash of light emitted from Mars, and at right angles to the line joining the observer and Mars, and also at right angles to the axis of rotation, will appear to complete the rotational circuit in slightly less than 1 second, so that the apparent speed of that light in the rotating frame will be tens of millions of miles per second -- way in excess of C.

Logged

another_someone

quote:Originally posted by Atomic-SRegarding things moving greater than the speed of light: In relativity as we currently understand it, the local speed of light is the maximum local speed of any object or signal. However, G.R. as applied to gravity says that time passes slower at lower altitudes and faster at higher altitudes, and that light is affected correspondingly, so that it moves slower at lower altitudes and faster at higher altitudes

Sorry, this does not make sense to me.

If time moves slower, then assuming distance remains constant, and speed is a measure of distance covered in a unit of time, would that not make the speed appear faster, rather than slower; and conversely, if time goes faster, would it not make a given speed appear slower.

As I say, this assumes there is no compensating change in distance; and I thought their was a compensating change in distances, and hence no actual change in the speed of light (i.e. time is slower, distance is longer, so the distance covered in a unit of time remains the same).